Will Thimbleby wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 2005, at 12:45 am, DM Smith wrote:
><snip/>
>> <snip/>
>>>>> Restricting of searches:
>>> Again another area that is essential for speed to do in lucene. I
>>> haven't figured this one out yet, but I'm thinking I will write a
>>> custom lucene filter. Which would be much faster if I stored the
>>> verse as an index, and then produced a set of numerical ranges. For
>>> searching in the previous results, you should (I've been told)
>>> simply AND the searches together. I don't support these yet, and it
>>> is probably quite some work, -- it would probably only take 10s of
>>> searching time to retrofit it ontop of lucene, but that is 10s ontop
>>> of nothing.
>>>>>> The search speed of lucene is fast enough that restricting the search
>> is not necessary. Using the BitSet does not add appreciable time. It
>> is easy enough to create a mask and AND that with the search results
>> to get the restricted answer set.
>>> How do you use your BitSet? I like it at the moment where I don't
> access the document information at all until it is displayed. This
> means I can do live-searching (as the user types) for even large
> searches like "and".
>The verse reference is "stored" as "key" along with "indexing" the verse
as "content".
When the verse reference is gotten out of the hit, it is converted into
a verse index. This is then stored in the BitSet.
When we get it out we convert it back into a friendly version of the
verse reference.
<snip/>